RATHORE, J. - (1.) SINCE these two review petitions are involving similar question of law, therefore, they are being decided by this common order.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the petitioners are B. E. and were initially appointed as Project Engineers (Junior) by the Rajasthan Housing Board against the substantive posts in the year 1989 and their services are being regulated by the Rajasthan Housing Board Employees (Conditions of Recruitment and Promotion) Regulations, 1976 (for short `the Regulations of 1976' ). The post of Project Engineer (Senior) is to be filled 50% by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion. The promotion quota was further bifurcated into 25% to be filled from Diploma holders and 25% to be filled from Degree holders. The Board vide its resolution No. 137. 20 dated 9. 12. 1987 amended the said ratio of promotion quota to 30% to be filled from Diploma holders and 20% to be filled from Degree holders and this amendment was approved by the State Government vide its order dated 25. 2. 2000. It is alleged that since 1987 no DPC was held for promotion on the post of Project Engineer (Senior) and adhoc promotions were made from time to time and vide order dated 15. 3. 95, 54 Project Engineers (Junior) were promoted on the post of Project Engineer (Senior) for a period of one year or till the holding of meeting of DPC, whichever is earlier. The petitioners were also promoted on the post of Project Engineer (Senior ). The Commissioner, Rajasthan Housing Board has issued a notice dated 19. 12. 2002 stating therein as to why adhoc promotions given to the petitioners be not cancelled and they be reverted. The notices were issued to the petitioners pursuant to the directions given by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 31. 7. 2002 rendered in D. B. Civil Special Appeal Nos. 724/1998 and 746/1998, whereby the notification dated 28. 3. 93 issued by the State Government has been found invalid. It is contended on behalf of the review-petitioners that the petitioners had no knowledge of the decisions passed by the Single Bench and Division Bench as they were not party to the writ petitions or special appeals. A writ petition bearing No. 827/1997 was filed by Shri Prem Nidhi Sharma, respondent No. 2 in the review petition, wherein the resolution dated 2. 1. 1995 of the Board was challenged on the ground that since Govt. notification dated 28. 8. 93 on the basis of which resolution No. 168. 48 dated 2. 1. 95 was adopted, has been found to be invalid by this Court vide judgments rendered in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4100/1994 and D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 985/1996, therefore, the resolution No. 168. 48 dated 2. 1. 1995 is invalid and the promotions made on the post of Project Engineer (Senior) vide order dated 15. 3. 95 on the basis of this resolution are also invalid. Learned Single Judge of this Court vide judgment dated 20. 7. 98 partly allowed the writ petition mainly on the ground that the resolution No. 168. 48 dated 2. 1. 1995 is invalid since it has the effect of amending the regulation without previous sanction of the State Government. Learned Single Judge has considered the regulations framed in the year 1976 called the Rajasthan Housing Board Employees conditions of Recruitment and Promotion Regulations, 1976. Under Regulation 7, it is provided that the ratio of direct recruitment and promotion of the employees in the service of the Board and qualifications and experience required for various posts will be in accordance with the `schedule' appended to the Regulations. Direct recruitment has been defined under Regulation 8. Regulation 10 provides that the first promotion to the Higher post shall be made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit and seniority list of each category of employees shall be prepared and maintained. As per the regulations the post of Project Engineer is to be filled up 50% by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion. There is again bifurcation in the promotion category to the effect that out of 50% posts meant for promotion, 30% posts are to be filled from diploma holders and 20% from degree holders. The respondent No. 2 Prem Nidhi Sharma (petitioner in the aforementioned writ petitioner) is diploma holder. The Government vide its order dated 28. 8. 93 decided that Junior Engineers be given one time promotion as Assistant Engineer against the direct recruitment quota for the reason that no recruitment could be made and the work was suffering. Learned Single Judge having considered the judgment passed in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4100/94 dated 16. 4. 96 and the judgment dated 24. 2. 94 passed in D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 682/1993, has observed that resolution No. 168. 48 is not sustainable in the eyes of law for the reason that it has nowhere been mentioned that the Regulation in regard to the promotions to be made to the ratio of 50% to Junior Engineers out of which 30% quota is allotted to diploma holders Junior Engineers and 20% to the degree holder Junior Engineers had been framed with the prior approval of the Government. Before amendment in the Regulations of 1976, prior approval has not been sought by the Rajasthan Housing Board, therefore, the resolution has no legal sanctity and is contrary to the provisions of Section 53 of the Housing Board Act itself and while partly allowing the aforesaid writ petition, the learned Single Judge has observed as under:-      " Though the resolution No. 168. 48 has not been framed in accordance with the law. The appointments made in view of the resolution and against the regulations cannot be held invalid, but for the reason that the persons who are to be reverted had not been made party, I shall be hesitating to pass order of quashing the orders Annexures 4 and 5. However, it shall be appropriate that the respondent Housing Board shall issue notice to the persons promoted in violation of the regulations and after giving them proper opportunity, action be taken in accordance with law, within six months from the date of receipt of this order. "
(3.) AGGRIEVED and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment dated 20. 7. 98 passed by the learned Single Judge, the Rajasthan Housing Board filed D. B. Special Appeal No. 724/1998 titled as Rajasthan Housing Board vs. Prem Nidhi Sharma, and R. C. Burania and others filled D. B. Special Appeal No. 746/1998 titled as R. C. Burania & Ors. vs. The Rajasthan Housing Board & Ors. These two special appeals were arising out of the same judgment dated 20. 7. 98 passed by the learned Single Judge in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 827/1997 and the same were dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide common judgment dated 31. 7. 2002. The Division Bench having considered the observations made by the learned Single Judge has observed as under:- The direction so issued by the learned Single Judge is obvious that the directions are not at all in any manner affecting the rights of the appellants R. C. Burania & Ors. and no adverse order has been passed against them and if the appellants have any grievance they can raise it before the Housing Board pursuant to the notice to be given to them as the learned Single Judge has specifically directed the Housing Boards to issue notice to the persons who have been promoted in violation of the regulations and after giving them proper opportunity shall pass the order in accordance with the provisions of law. " Learned counsel appearing for the review-petitioners has challenged the judgments dated 20. 7. 98 and 31. 7. 2002 passed by the learned Single Judge and Division Bench of this Court respectively on the ground that the petitioners were not parties either in the writ petition or in the special appeals, therefore, they had no occasion to represent their case either before the learned Single Judge or before the Division Bench and as the petitioners were not made party in the writ petition or in special appeals, their rights are adversely affected and since the petitioners were likely to be affected, it was essential that they should have been impleaded as parties, as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B. Ramanjini vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, reported in 2002 (5) SCC 533, wherein in para No. 19 it has been held as under:-      " 19. Selection process had commended long back as early as in 1998 and it had been completed. The persons selected were appointed pursuant to the selections made and had been performing their duties. However, the selected candidates had not been impleaded as parties to the proceedings either in their individual capacity or in any representative capacity. In that view of the matter, the High Court ought not to have examined any of the questions raised before it. The writ petitions filed by the respondents concerned ought to have been dismissed which are more or less in the nature of a public interest litigation. It is not a case where those candidates who could not take part in the examination had challenged the same nor was any public interest, as such, really involved in this matter. It is only in the process of selection and standardisation of pass marks that some relaxation had been given which was under attack. Therefore, the High Court ought not to have examined the matter at the instance of the petitioners, particularly, in the absence of the parties before the Court whose substantial rights to hold office came to be virtually affected. " After referring the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the judgment passed by the Division Bench dated 31. 7. 2002 is in violation of principles of natural justice. ;